Senate Outlook

Lots of attention on the presidential race. Here is my outlook on the next Senate.

The Democrats currently enjoy a thin 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate. This November, 34 seats are being contested. Of the 12 seats defended by the Democrats only one, LA, looks to be competitive. Of the 22 seats defended by the GOP, five currently look to be lost to the Democrats with another four seats looking at least competitive for the Democrats. The five seats which look to be lost are VA, CO, NM, NH, and AK. The four which look competitive are ME, OR, MN, and NC.

If the Democrats would happen to win all these seats, they would enjoy a 60-40 majority in the Senate. Such a majority could easily invoke cloture cutting off debate on legislation before the Senate. (Cloture is a powerful tool which the minority party in the Senate uses to prevent legislation from being brought to a vote.) Winning nine seats seems unlikely, unless there is a Democratic wave nationwide in November. The more likely outcome is winning the five seats mentioned above, giving the Democrats a 56-44 majority. Though it would be a challenge, convincing four GOP senators to invoke cloture would be possible. One only needs to think of Smith (OR), Collins, Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), Voinovich (OH), or Lugar (IN). It may be easy for the Democrats to find enough GOP votes to invoke cloture on a probable President Obama's nominations to the federal bench and approve them. It may be more difficult to find GOP votes to invoke cloture on anti-life legislation because of the reservations of some more conservative Democrats. Think Casey (PA), Nelson (NE), Landrieu (LA), or Tester (MT). Given Senator Obama's promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as one of his first acts as president, these and other Democrats may be the only stop in the coming pro-abortion agenda.

Catholics should take note of the consequences of a larger Democratic majority in the Senate.

**Wish I could be posting more. Life is busy, but my hat is off to my fellow editors who are doing OUTSTANDING work here at Catholics in the Public Square. I plan on soon shutting down Catholics for Bush and posting here and on Twitter with a focus on the congressional races.

Doug Kmiec: "Master of Dissembling"

DarwinCatholic responds to Doug Kmiec's latest apologetic for Obama in the New York Times.

Meet Sarah Palin ... Our next Vice President?

Congratulations to the 'Draft Sarah Palin for VP bloggers -- they must be overjoyed and this is certainly their day.

• Official bio from the State of Alaska
  
• A very informative Wikipedia entry on Sarah Palin.
  

• John McCain's official press release announcing his pick.
  

• Some facts on Palin's children:

  On September 11, 2007, the Palins' son Track joined the Army. Eighteen years old at the time, he is the eldest of Palin's five children.[10] Track now serves in an infantry brigade and will be deployed to Iraq in September. She also has three daughters: Bristol, 17, Willow, 13, and Piper, 7. On April 18, 2008, Palin gave birth to her second son, Trig Paxson Van Palin, who has Down syndrome. She returned to the office three days after giving birth. Palin refused to let the results of prenatal genetic testing change her decision to have the baby. "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection," Palin said. "Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?"

  
  
• Five Things You Didn't Know About Sarah Palin - didn't know her husband is part Eskimo. He runs a "family commercial fishing operation in addition to a full-time job as an oil company production operator."
  

• David Freddoso @ The Corner: "She is everything Obama is not.":

  A real reformer who took on her own party's corrupt establishment and won, defeating an incumbent governor, 80-20. Don't forget that she's also a mother who chose life for her Down Syndrome baby — we can probably guess where she'd fall on the Born-Alive act. If this is the future of the GOP, they're in good shape.

  
  

Reactions from the Catholic online community

• Deacon Kieth Fournier on Maverick McCain's selection of the Alaska Governor (Catholic.org August 29, 2008):

  The Maverick has indeed gone bold.He has just infused this 2008 presidentail campaign with a jolt of raw energy. The entire Press corps is fixated on the Republicans this morning, even though Senator Barack Obama gave his much anticipated acceptance speech last night. Senator John McCain turned 72 years old today. With this historic decision he has proven that he still has a lot of life and courage.

• Babies, Guns and Jesus! Hot Damn! - Patrick Archbold (Creative Minority Report).

• Some Have Hats on the Obama campaign's condescension toward small towns:

  I just watched an Obama Camp spokeswoman explain, with a look on her face like she just stepped in a cowpile, that Palin's only experience is that she has been a "part-time mayor of a town with a population of under 9,000." ...
  

  I'd just like to say, as a person who grew up in a town of 1,200 and was raised by the Vice-Mayor: Obama's elitist, condescending, small-town-bashing bigots can kiss my ignorant, gun-toting, Bible-clutching @ss.

  
  
• Radical Catholic Mom @ Vox Nova approves, and gives 5 reasons why Democrats shouldn't underestimate her:

  I have known Sarah Palin for years. How? I met her through AK Right to Life. She always came to our fund-raising dinners, she always came to pro-life events (even when she took time off from politics to be home with her children), and one of her kids became AK RTL’s baby mascot for our stationery. She is the real deal when it comes to pro-life matters. This became even more clear when at the age of 44 of this year, she gave birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome. BTW: No one knew she was pregnant until 1 month before giving birth!
  

  She worked under previous (Catholic-pro-life) Governor Frank Murkowski’s Admin and ended up resigning because the corruption was so blatant and so bad she could not effect change. She gave up her 6 figure income to do so. This catapulted her into stardom for Alaskans. ...

  Fellow contributor Jay Anderson has a nice roundup on Palin @ Pro Ecclesia... -- critical as he is of John McCain, he asks: "is this a ticket I can support?".
  

• Howard Wolfson, a A Hillary Clinton campaign worker concurs:

  Yesterday I argued that picking a woman for veep would help re-establish McCain's reputation as a maverick. If the pick is indeed Sarah Palin you are going to have a lot of women voters wondering why Senator Obama didn't tap Senator Clinton as his running mate.

  
  

Pro-life mother of five, former two-term mayor of Wasilia (where she cut her own salary!) and governor of Alaska with an 80-90% approval rating; bane of Alaskan Republican and 'Big Oil' corruption; she sold the state's private jet on E-Bay because it was "government waste" ... she hunts moose and fishes and is a lifelong NRA member. Feminist for Life and staunchly pro-life.

She also knows how to handle an M-16.

She's not a Catholic, however -- but in this case I'll settle. =)

Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's Running Mate, is Super Pro-Life

She refused to abort her baby with Down Syndrome. She is an assertive woman of integrity who is strongly pro-life and against pork barrel spending. She is a member of Feminists for Life. She is the governor of a major oil-producing state that, by the way, borders Russia right across the narrow Bering Strait and also shares a long land border with Canada and, as governor, is commander in chief of the state's national guard units. With this choice, McCain brands the Republican Party as reformist and against the status quo because, after all, to be pro-life and to defy pork barrel political spending is to be reformist and against the status quo. What an embarrassing irony that the only Catholic on either ticket, Joe Biden, is an enthusiastic supporter of Roe v. Wade. That irony points to something deeply wrong among many Catholics in the U.S.

Update: Columnist Michael Barone does me one better in the geography department: Alaska "is the only state with territory, in the Aleutian Islands, occupied by the enemy in World War II." Alaska is on the international front line. That's the international reality for any governor of Alaska. See link. See also the statement of the pro-abortion group NARAL condemning Gov. Palin at this link. Sometimes, you can learn a lot by what one's political enemies say about a candidate. Also, it is interesting to note that Gov. Palin apparently is a member of a church affiliated with the Pentecostal Assemblies of God denomination (see p. 8 of this PDF link to an Assemblies of God newsletter from Alaska; see also this link). Interestingly, Pentecostalism is considered to be the fastest growing segment of Christianity in the world, especially in Africa and Latin America. That easily overlooked affiliation gives her a link to the Third World that even Obama does not have. By the way, apparently her husband is part Eskimo, which makes him part Native American. This bold, pro-life selection reflects well on the character and fortitude of John McCain, a character and fortitude proven as a POW and proven as the leading and risky proponent of the initially unpopular troop surge that has stabilized Iraq and opened the door to victory in that conflict.

"Pelosi-Gate" covered by major media; CNN "imposes blackout"

Catholic bloggers (and bisohops) have been on this story for the past week, but the mainstream news outlets are finally catching up. Some major coverage so far:

• Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology, by Rachel Zoll. Associated Press.
  
• Pope Pelosi at the Gate, by Kathleen Parker, Washington Post.
  
• Pelosi’s abortion comments provoke Catholic criticism Reuters.
  

FoxNews devoted an entire segment of their 'Special Report' program to the story.

Unfortunately, as NewsBusters observes, CNN placed a total news blackout on Nancy Pelosi’s misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and history on abortion and the subsequent reaction from several prominent Catholic bishops and from pro-life politicians.

You would think when eleven (and counting) bishops of the Catholic Church single out the Speaker of the House by name in a public rebuke on abortion, it would warrant a mention.

Another Major Advance in Adult Stem Cell Research

See this Washington Post link. Why then all the rush into the ethical quagmire of embryonic stem cell research? The sensible rule for all, whether Catholic or not, believer or not: resolve all doubts in favor of life. How much more pressing that sensible rule is when we have an ethically clean alternative that does not threaten life but promises only to enhance life for all.

Catholic Columnist Bob Novak Is Writing Again

I was already missing his insider political analysis since he was diagnosed with a brain tumor. But he is now back writing and planning to bless us with occasional columns during this election season. Of course, include him in your prayers for recovery precisely because he is a prime example of a Catholic in the middle of the public square who is sorely needed in the media world. Here is the link where his occasional columns will appear. Today, he has a column on McCain and Lieberman. (Note: I experienced some problems trying to access again the link which is at Creators.com).

Update: Here is an easier link to try.

More on the Bishops' Taking Pelosi To Task

Here is a good overview of the reactions of various bishops rightly pointing out that Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was flat wrong in telling the national media that the Catholic Church is uncertain about the point where life begins. The pro-abortionists like to repeatedly raise the mantra that we do not know when life begins. That is scientifically false. It is clear that life begins at fertilization. But, for the sake of argument, let us for the moment say that we are uncertain about the precise point when life begins. Common sense logic--not anything abstruse--still comes down on the side of no abortions at all. Here is the simple analysis that even a child can follow (but maybe not a politician with national ambitions in the Democratic Party):

1. Life is sacred. (If you are talking with an atheist, you can slightly alter this assertion as follows: Life is deserving of robust special protection.)

2. If there is doubt if life is present, resolve any doubts in favor of protecting life because life is sacred and deserving of robust special protection.

The rebuttable presumption is that life begins at fertilization. The burden of proof is on those who wish to abort to rebut that presumption. Since life is sacred and deserving of special protection, the burden of proof is not on the Church to prove that life does indeed begin at fertilization. Those who wish to risk taking life have the burden of proof. They must shoulder the burden of proving that there is no life present. They have not and cannot meet this burden of proving that life does not begin at fertilization. In fact, as the science of embryology makes use of new technological advances, the more precise and clearer evidence of early fetal development strengthens the presumption that life does begin at fertilization. Given this lack of proof that life does not begin at fertilization, pro-abortionists then turn to semantics and simply try to change the definition of life that is worthy of life. The Nazis took this same semantic approach when they labeled their alleged "racial and/or genetic inferiors" as life unworthy of life. The pro-abortionists are not in good company. They have made the American legal system follow a Nazi-like way of thinking about human life. What an irony that association is after all the sacrifices made to defeat the Nazis in World War II.

P.S. By the way, I have posted two comments responding to recent vigorous criticism of a prior post I wrote adding character and fortitude to the list of non-negotiable Catholic principles to be used in evaluating candidates. See this link and this link (you will have to click "comments").

Pelosi's dispute with U.S. Bishops escalates; repudiates Church's teaching authority

Via Amy Welborn, Brendan Daly, Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman issued a statement::

The Speaker is the mother of five children and seven grandchildren and fully appreciates the sanctity of family. She was raised in a devout Catholic family who often disagreed with her pro-choice views.

“After she was elected to Congress, and the choice issue became more public as she would have to vote on it, she studied the matter more closely. Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of Saint Augustine, who said: ‘…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation…’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22)

“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view. The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions. She believes that can be done by making family planning more available, as well as by increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs.

“The Speaker has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.”

In sum:

• Pelosi appreciates the sanctity of the family, but not the unborn;
  
• She's unabashedly pro-choice
  
• She appals (again) to uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology from the Middle Ages, never mind the testimony of modern science and the fact that her Church has consistently taught, from the beginning, the moral evil of every procured abortion
  
• On the contrary, the Bishops should support Pelosi's quest for expanded access to contraception
  
• But really, who gives a damn about the unborn? -- She's for "social justice", so it's ok.
  

As one commentator at Amy's noted,

Perhaps more significant than her endorsement of abortion and contraception, is Ms. Pelosi’s outright rejection of the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.

Chronological Timeline of Nancy Pelosi's Remarks (Courtesy of American Papist):

• 8/24 - Morning: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes numerous uninformed and false claims about the Catholic Church's 2,000-year teaching on abortion in her Meet the Press interview
  
• 8/24 - Evening: numerous Catholic and conservative blogs criticize Pelosi
  
• 8/25 - Afternoon: Abp. Chaput publishes “On the Separation of Sense and State: A Clarification for the People of the Church of Northern Colorado", becoming the first bishop to publicly correct Nancy Pelosi on authentic Catholic teaching.
  
• 8/25 - Late Afternoon: Ten Catholic members of Congress respond to Pelosi [AmericanPapist Scoop]
  
• 8/25 - Early Evening: The US Bishops respond to Pelosi in a special press release posted to the main page of the USCCB's website
  
• 8/25 - Late Evening: Abp. Wuerl of Washington DC also corrects Pelosi
  
• 8/26 - Early Morning: Associated Press and political blogs note the bishops' statements
  
• 8/27 - Early Afternoon: Cardinal Egan issues the strongest condemnation yet of Pelosi
  
• 8/27 - Mid Afternoon: Pelosi's diocese of San Francisco opts to issue a USCCB reprint (but Rocco Palmo informs us that "Archbishop George Niederauer will publish a 'lengthy commentary' on Pelosi's comments in a column for the next edition of the archdiocesan weekly, Catholic San Francisco."
  

Has There Ever Been Such a Strong Condemnation of the "Pro-Choice" Position from a Catholic Prelate?

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York

August 26, 2008

(emphasis added)

Measuring presidential candidates by the "Non-Negotiables"

In terms of judging the quality of our political candidates, Pope Benedict gave us a clear example of the "non-negotiables":

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

• protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
  

• recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
  

• the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
  

These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.

In light of which, I'd like to note -- to disagree with a colleague -- that "character" and "personal fortitude" are not among them.

This is not to say I don't commend McCain for his courage as a POW survivor, for maintaining his Christian faith and spirit in the face of incredibly trying circumstances; or for his unwavering support of a policy in Iraq (even at a time when he was resisted by many in his party, including the President) which has in effect turned the war around and will bring our troops home with honor.

But to describe such as distinctly Catholic merely adds to the confusion. McCain embodies Catholic ideals to the extent that he carries out the true non-negotiables as specified by our Holy Father.

"The least of these"

"Who Are the Least Among Us?":

“. . . caring for the least among us each and every day.” Thus said Michelle Obama, halfway through her speech. Her husband likes to quote this passage (from Matthew 25). Who are “the least” in Obama’s world? Lots and lots of people, including widows and orphans and, generally, those who are poor. But not the child in utero (or even, to judge by his opposition to the Illinois legislation designed to protect babies that survive abortion, actual infants). Obama needs to be asked why the unborn fail to qualify as one of his “least of these.” Maybe in one of the debates?

Precisely. Lord willing, there will be a town-hall debate where this gets asked.

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali & William E. Lori respond to Nancy Pelosi

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine issued a statement posted to the main page of the website of the U.S. Catholic Bishops:

In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.

The Church has always taught that human life deserves respect from its very beginning and that procured abortion is a grave moral evil. In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church has long taught that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.

More information on the Church's teaching on this issue can be found in our brochure "The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church". PDF | Text

• Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life
  
• “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper”: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist

We'd like to thank Archbishop Chaput for his outstanding letter, and to Cardinal Justin F. Rigali and Bishop William E. Lori for stepping up so quickly. It's our fervent hope that this will establish something of a trend in Bishops' responses to "pro-choice" Catholics who publicly misrepresent and repudiate Catholic teaching.

Update! Not to be outdone, Archbishop Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington issues a statement.

Update! - Cardinal Egan of New York City piles on.

Now, perhaps a little something from Pelosi's home diocese?

Archbishop Chaput responds to Nancy Pelosi

Catholic News Agency reports that In a statement eloquently titled “On the Separation of Sense and State,” the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., and his Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley harshly criticized Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for giving a confusing view of the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion, during a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press"

Click here to download Archbishop Chaput's full rebuttal to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It's so good, I trust the Archbishop will understand my inclination to post it in full:

To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:

"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever
one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelminglyheld that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But nonediminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibisthat break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But ofcourse, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Archbishop of Denver

+James D. Conley

Auxiliary Bishop of Denver

Nancy Pelosi professes ignorance of human reproductive biology; Amy Welborn notifies U.S. Bishops of a "teaching moment"

Nancy Pelosi was on Meet The Press today and engaged in what I'm going to refer to as a "Joe Biden" moment -- namely, when a Catholic politican suddenly loses his grasp and professes his sudden and complete ignorance of elementary human reproductive biology:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

For the record, Mr. Brokaw repeats a very elementary mistake here, in that the question from Pastor Warren was not "When does life begin" but "at what point does a baby get human rights"? -- Two very different things, and the fact that many politicians and journalists have professed an inability to answer the first is indeed, worrisome.

With regards to Rep. Pelosi's answer, Amy Welborn refers us to Catholidoxy, who sets Pelosi straight on not only what Augustine thought, but what the Bishops have actually taught concerning this matter.

To which Amy Welborn adds, justifiably so:

Over and over we are told - by bishops themselves - that their primary role in contentious situations like this is to teach.

So..TEACH.

Here you have a very prominent American Catholic, going on the record with her purported studiousness on this issue, authoritatively declaring something false about the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is what we call a teachable moment. Monday morning, the USCCB should have a press release, accompanied by a real human being - preferably a bishop - maybe even a Colorado bishop, given the location and the proximity of the press - giving a short, succinct correction of Pelosi’s statement. It wouldn’t take long. Do it right in front of where the convention is meeting.

No 501(c)(3) worries. No threats of endorsement or condemnation. Just…

Teach.

Do it over and over and over - do not let this moments pass by and the deceptions continue to rule.

A Bit More Data on Biden

To supplement Christopher Blosser's fine article, the pro-abortion activist group NARAL currently gives Biden a 60% favorable rating (see source link). By comparison, the pro-abortion group gives Sen. McCain a 0% pro-choice score (see source link). Sen. Obama gets a 100% rating (see source link).This election is a no-brainer for pro-life Catholics and other pro-life Christians. For the life of me, I can't see why any pro-life voter would hesitate, even for a millisecond, in voting for McCain when the only other choice is Obama. Can any such hesitation be due to paralysis by overanalysis or to some strain of unconscious intellectual vanity? It's time to take sides and get in the campaign trenches.

Another observation: what we have in Biden is the typical Democratic machine politician like the current Daley in Chicago. For them, power comes before faith. To me, it's emblematic of a distorted form of Catholicism that relegates Catholicism to some sort of mere folk/ethnic/sociological identification. In fact, Catholicism is a personal relationship with Jesus in union with the Church founded by Jesus. St. Paul spent a large portion of his life (and of the New Testament that we are supposed to be reading regularly) fighting the notion that Christianity would be an ethnic based religion based on mere tribal markers. The heresy that he fought keeps lingering as the ongoing temptation to make of Catholicism a merely sociological/ethnic identity rather than a personal relationship with Jesus in the heart of His Church. Once you go the sociological route, countercultural obedience to Jesus falls by the wayside. Social ambition takes over. In contrast to Biden and Daley, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, for example, is a strong pro-life Catholic politician who converted from a Hindu background. That's proof that true Catholicism has no ethnic markers and that sometimes the ethnic markers are a self-deceiving snare.

Joe Biden's "Pro-Choice Catholicism" - A Liability for Obama and a Scandal to the Church

Obama's Choice of Biden Re-Opens Catholic Wound", according to Fidelis, pointing out Biden's own Bishop's admonishments on the obligation of Catholic legislators to protect life and refrain from profaining the Eucharist:

Biden's own bishop, Bishop Michael Saltarelli of Wilmington, Del., has said that the issues pertaining to the sanctity of human life are the "great civil rights issues of this generation."
Bishop Saltarelli denounced the notion that politicians can 'personally oppose' abortion, but refuse to pass laws protecting the unborn.

"No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: 'I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.' Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: "I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena," said Bishop Saltarelli.

In fact, Bishop Saltarelli made clear that pro-abortion Catholic politicians should refrain from receiving the Eucharist.

"The promotion of abortion by any Catholic is a grave and serious matter. Objectively, according to the constant teaching of the Scriptures and the Church, it would be more spiritually beneficial for such a person to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. I ask Catholics in this position to have the integrity to respect the Eucharist, Catholic teaching and the Catholic faithful."

In an interview with the Christian Science Monitor, Senator Biden disputed the notion that disobedience to Catholic moral teaching placed one at odds with the Church:

"My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine ... There are elements within the church who say that if you are at odds with any of the teachings of the church, you are at odds with the church. I think the church is bigger than that."

[...]

"There are those who say that Catholics should be robots: There's a formula, and if we don't follow that formula, we shouldn't present ourselves for communion on Sunday morning," says Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United. "That's an absolute misuse of Catholic teaching," he says, referring to the call of several Catholic bishops in the 2004 campaign to deny communion to Senator Kerry and other Catholic politicians who did not vote in line with Vatican teachings on abortion.

Without taking a position on how Catholics should vote, Biden makes a case for staying connected to the church and its culture. "If I were an ordained priest, I'd be taking some issue with some of the more narrow interpretations of the Gospel being taken now," Biden says. "But my church is more than 2,000 years old. There's always been a tug of war among prelates and informed lay members."

Biden on Abortion

OnTheIssues.org has a summary of Joe Biden's record on abortion -- on a positive note, he supported the ban on partial birth abortion and disagrees with public funding for abortion. On a negative note, he supports ESCR, opposes parental notification of minors; opposed criminal penalties for harming the unborn during the commitment of another crime; opposed the ban on human cloning.

According to OnTheIssues, NARAL gave him a 36% favorability rating in 2003 (expressing some doubt as to his commitment), but a check of their website reveals that they have rated him 100% on his legislative record as late as 2005. Biden presently carries a 0% rating with the National Right To Life Committe for his 2007-2008 legislative record.

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Biden "strongly support[s] Roe v. Wade":

He said he is "prepared to accept" the Catholic Church's teaching that life begins at conception but said Roe v. Wade "is as close to we're going to be able to get as a society" to incorporating diverging religious views on the issue. Although he voted in favor of the bill to ban late-term abortions, Biden said the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision to uphold the ban was "intellectually dishonest," saying its language undermined Roe v. Wade.

Biden voted in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which was vetoed by President Bush. The bill would have allowed federal funding for research on stem cell lines obtained from discarded human embryos originally created for fertility treatments.

Joe Biden on McCain, Obama and his Catholic Faith

So Barack Obama has selected Senator Joe Biden as his VP.

Before we get to tackling the serious issues of Biden's record in the days to come, some humor:

Biden on McCain

• Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.”
  

• Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...”
  

• On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”
  

Biden on Obama

• Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”
  

• Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
  

• Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”
  

• Also that night, Biden said in a campaign ad, “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”
  

Source: ‘Just Words’ That Joe Biden Would Like To Forget: The curse of a loose mouth and Nexis, by Jim Geraghty (National Review)

Biden on his Catholic faith

"If I'm the nominee, Republicans will be sorry," said Biden, a Roman Catholic who ran for president in 1988. "The next Republican that tells me I'm not religious I'm going to shove my rosary beads down their throat."

-- Joe Biden, November 2005.

Threatening to shove one's rosary beads down others' throats is not the sort of thing one says when one has the benefit of the many graces that are promised to those who daily pray the rosary.

-- Paul (Thoughts of a Regular Guy).

Character and Fortitude Are Also Catholic "Non-Negotiables"

Like everyone else in this Catholic group blog, I am foursquare and unwavering that the issue of life is foremost: Roe v. Wade must be overruled. John McCain must be the one filling the upcoming Supreme Court vacancies, not the pro-abortion extremist Barack Obama. But the character of a candidate is also a Catholic issue. Character is always a Catholic issue. Strong leadership to protect a nation is a Catholic issue. After all, the Catholic view is that the purpose of government is to protect and advance the common good. Strong leadership is essential to the common good. I may possibly stand out in this group blog in the depth of my strong advocacy of John McCain's candidacy. What struck me during the past year is his Churchillian strength of character and leadership in pushing for the Iraq surge in troops, a strategy that has transformed impending defeat into victory that the Democrats are now scrambling to hide and deny. The Washington Times has a lengthy article setting forth the behind the scenes work of Sen. McCain in making this winning strategy a reality that we are benefiting from today. Here is the link. The article is worth reading in spite of its length. It's a fascinating first draft of a recent and very significant turning point in American history that is still ongoing. It's a first draft that clearly points to John McCain as the candidate with two very Catholic traits: character and personal fortitude. Those virtues are also Catholic "non-negotiables" in my view, just as a pro-life presidency is also non-negotiable.

Archbishop Chaput: "The right to life is foundational"

As if the interview with National Review with Kathryn Jean Lopez wasn't sufficient, Archbishop Chaput asks us to "Vote for Real Hope and Change" on abortion in a contribution to First Things:

First, surrounding a bad social policy or party platform plank—for example, permissive abortion—with religious people doesn’t redeem the bad policy or plank. It merely compromises the religious people who try to excuse it.

[...]

Words are important. Actions are more important. The religious choreography of a campaign doesn’t matter. The content of its ideas does. The religious vocabulary of a candidate doesn’t matter. The content of his record, plans, and promises does.

Second, there’s no way for Catholics to finesse their way around the abortion issue, and if we’re serious about being “Catholic,” we need to stop trying. No such thing as a “right” to kill an unborn child exists. And wriggling past that simple truth by redefining the unborn child as an unperson, a pre-human lump of cells, is the worst sort of Orwellian hypocrisy—especially for Christians. Abortion always involves the deliberate killing of an innocent human life, and it is always, inexcusably, grievously wrong. This fact in no way releases us from the duty to provide ample and compassionate support for unwed or abandoned mothers, women facing unwanted pregnancies, and women struggling with the aftermath of an abortion. But the inadequacy of that support demands that we work to improve it. It does not justify killing the child.

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit—but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade. ...READ THE REST

National Review interviews Archbishop Chaput on Catholics in Political Life

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput was interviewed by Kathryn Lopez of the National Review, touching on the obligations of Catholic voters and legislators and other topics pertaining to his new book, Render Under Caesar: Serving the National by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life:

Lopez: What should it mean when I’m “voting Catholic?”

Archbishop Chaput: We should see ourselves as Catholic first — not white or black, or young or old. or Democrat or Republican, or labor militant or business owner, but Catholic first as the main way we identify ourselves. Our faith should shape our lives, including our political choices. Of course, that demands that we actually study and deepen our Catholic faith. The Catholic faith isn’t a set of clothes that we can tailor to a personal fit. We don’t “invent” our faith, and we don’t “own” it. If we really want to be Catholic, then we’ll live by Catholic teaching. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves and abusing the belief of other Catholics who really do try to practice what the Church teaches.

Lopez: What extra responsibilities do Catholic politicians have?

Archbishop Chaput: Catholic public officials have a duty to see their work not merely as a job or a profession, but as a vocation flowing out of their Baptism. Every Christian has an obligation to continue the work of Christ’s redemption and to help sanctify and humanize the world. Obviously, Catholic politicians serve believers and non-believers alike. They need to respect the proper autonomy of secular affairs. But in dispensing justice and administering power, they serve the common good, and the common good is always tied to moral truth. Their religious faith should be their moral compass.

[...]

Lopez: Is there an abortion litmus test for Catholics?

Archbishop Chaput: “Litmus test” is a media expression that’s front-loaded with the assumption of some priestly censor checking off behavioral-compliance boxes. That’s not how any sincere believer thinks about his or her faith. Faithful Catholics want to live their faith fully — and one of the principles of Catholic social teaching is that we can never deliberately kill innocent human life. Abortion always, deliberately kills an innocent unborn child. Nobody can honestly claim to be a faithful Catholic and then support a false “right” to abortion; it’s just an elegant way of evading the brutality of what abortion actually does.

Lopez: Is there any virtue to the Cuomo-esqe personally opposed, etc. formula we see over and over again with politicians, especially Democrats?

Archbishop Chaput: The problem isn’t unique to either political party, and no, there’s no virtue to the “personally opposed” argument at all. The word “virtue” comes from the Latin virtus meaning strength or courage. I don’t see much courage in maneuvering around the reality of abortion with sanitized labels like “pro-choice.”

Lopez: Whenever I write about Catholics and abortion, I am immediately asked, “What about war? What about the death penalty?” What about them? Can a Catholic vote for Senator “Surge”? We have killed people in Iraq, after all.

Archbishop Chaput: I’ve written and spoken against the death penalty for more than 30 years. And along with most other American bishops, I opposed our intervention in Iraq. But these issues are different in kind, not merely degree, from the violence involved in abortion. Anyone rooted in Scripture and Catholic tradition will understand the distinction if he or she reasons honestly. Genocide, euthanasia, abortion, and deliberately targeting civilians in war — these things are always grievously wrong. But in Catholic thought, war and capital punishment can be morally legitimate under certain carefully defined circumstances. Abortion is never morally justified. ...

Read the whole interview with Archbishop Chaput.

McCain Takes the Lead in Reuters/Zogby Poll

It's a five point lead in this prominent poll. Here is the link. The Obama side whines about political attacks. In my view, McCain is effectively running a political campaign that needs to "attack" and to contrast, especially given the Obama refusal to take up McCain's offer of a series of joint townhall appearances. What the Obama campaign would have obviously preferred is that his heretofore "frontrunner" status would have been left untouched by any negative contrast.

The issue of so-called political attack raises a moral question for Catholics and other Christians. The virtues of fortitude and prudence combine to make it necessary in many situations to set the record straight on matters of vital importance. Sloppy, false, and sometimes slanderous views are put on the record in many situations in life, in and out of politics. You see the problem occur often in theological disputes between Catholics and non-Catholics and even among Catholics themselves. It is perfectly moral to state the truth forcefully and to point out what is specious or false in a position, whether in politics or theology, by citing evidence for one's so-called "attack." If that's "attack," then make the most of it. In contrast, what I call unfair "attack" would include statements that are focused on personal slander (known as ad hominem attacks). We have seen none of that from the McCain camp. I would also include in the category of unfair "attack" statements that are clearly superficial and not based on serious research. They are mere appeals to irrational bias and fear. Again, in my view, we have seen none of that from the McCain camp.

Archbishop Raymond Burke: "Pro-choice" Catholic politicians should not receive communion.

The prefect of the Apostolic Signature, Archbishop Raymond Burke, said this week that Catholics, especially politicians who publicly defend abortion, should not receive Communion. Catholic News Agency reports:

In an interview with the magazine, Radici Christiane, Archbishop Burke pointed out that there is often a lack of reverence at Mass when receiving Communion. “Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege,” he warned. “If it is done deliberately in mortal sin it is a sacrilege.”

To illustrate his point, he referred to “public officials who, with knowledge and consent, uphold actions that are against the Divine and Eternal moral law. For example, if they support abortion, which entails the taking of innocent and defenseless human lives. A person who commits sin in this way should be publicly admonished in such a way as to not receive Communion until he or she has reformed his life,” the archbishop said.

“If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him. Why? Above all, for the salvation of that person, preventing him from committing a sacrilege,” he added.

I can't help but recall Michael Sean Winters mocking the notion that pro-choice politicans should be denied communion this past April:

According to one American present during a spring 2004 Vatican meeting with U.S. bishops, then-Cardinal Ratzinger laughed when he heard of denying politicians communion based on their political views. After all, popes have, over the years, given communion to Communist mayors, gay legislators, and countless pro-choice politicians.

Perhaps the Holy Father meant to send a message by his appointment of the former Archbishop of St. Louis to the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura?

Kmiec Spins Obama's Performance at the Saddleback Civil Forum

Doug Kmiec makes an pathetic attempt to deflect criticism of Obama's performance at the SaddleBack Civil Forum. Jay Anderson responds and provides a roundup of commentary.

Mark Stricherz' "The New Catholic Politics"

Mark Stricherz has a blog, entitled "The New Catholic Politics":

Why is the site named New Catholic Politics? The old Catholic politics has been based on a modern political division. Conservative Catholics are culturally and fiscally conservative, while liberal Catholics are culturally and economically moderate or liberal. A new Catholic politics should be based on a unity rooted in Christian humanism in general and Catholic social teaching specifically. It accepts the conservatives’ insight that extending legal protection to the unborn is a foundational issue, but it agrees with liberals that social-justice issues are too often dismissed as prudential judgments.

Is your site geared just to Catholics? No. The site is likely to appeal to Catholics, as it will discuss the state of Catholic education, the sex-abuse scandal, and the sacraments. But its concerns are not limited to Catholics; far from it. My posts about politics will, as much as possible, be rooted in the universal principals of natural law.

What is the mission of this site? This site seeks to uphold the three cardinal virtues: faith, hope, and love. It believes that those virtues are under attack from three sources: secularism, elitism, and relativism. We Americans have too little faith and are too materialistic and individualistic. We ought to be more faith-filled, family-oriented, and civic minded.

Mark Stricherz is the author of Why the Democrats are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People’s Party (Encounter Books) and a contributor to GetReligion.org and InsideCatholic.com.

McCain and Obama at the Saddleback Civil Forum

NRO's Mark Hemingway on Obama's response to abortion during the Saddleback Forums:

When asked "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?," McCain answered "At the moment of conception." Obama's answer here was flaming-dirigible bad:

Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.

That spectacularly inept metaphor is going to haunt Obama throughout the rest of the campaign. News flash: There's not a job on the planet above the pay grade of the President of the United States. If you can't solve every problem and are humble about it, that's fine — but you can't get away with being unsure about the most defining moral issue in politics. Of course, he didn't put down the shovel:

But let me speak more generally about the issue of abortion. Because this is something, obviously, the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue is not paying attention.

So after completely hedging on the question and declining to give a specific answer — he wants to speak "more generally" about the issue? And, lo and behold, speak more generally he does: "I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue." In related news, Obama is also "absolutely convinced" that the sky is blue, water is wet and puppies are adorable. None of this, however, tells me a thing about his judgment and moral worldview.

Obama did, however, assert definitively that he was "pro-choice," which should go over well with the 500 evangelicals present in the audience.

Related

• Obama, Matthew 25, and Infanticide: A comment about the Saddleback Valley forum, by Francis Beckwith (What's Wrong With The World August 17, 2008):

  When Senator Obama, while in the Illinois senate, had the opportunity to require by law that medical professionals provide nutrition (something to eat), hydration (drink), protection (clothes), and shelter (inviting them in) to the smallest and most vulnerable strangers of all, the true "least of these," newborns who had survived abortions, Senator Obama stood with the goats.

• National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez asks What exactly is Barack Obama’s problem with Clarence Thomas?
  

  
  

• Obama finished off the evening by calling the National Right to Life liars on a question of fact, the latter having the documents on his Illinois "Born Alive" vote to prove his distortion of the matter. (UPDATE: Life Lies: Barack Obama and Born-Alive, by David Freddoso. NOR August 17, 2008).
  

  
  

• Enough about Obama, how'd McCain do? -- Deacon Kieth Fournier thinks "Senator McCain and Pastor Warren took the Gold", and here's Byron York on How McCain Won Saddleback (NRO August 17, 2008).
  

"Barack Obama - Extremist"

Barack Obama is co-sponser to the most draconian pieces of legislation ever put forth in the American debate over abortion, repealing laws passed by voters and state legislatures.

Attention McCain Campaign: don't side-step this issue. This is the type of ad you should be running.

(Via Southern Appeal; DarwinCatholic).

McCain Hints at Pro-Choice Catholic Tom Ridge as Potential Running Mate

From The Washington Times:

Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that he would not rule out naming a pro-choice vice-presidential nominee, saying the abortion issue amounts to "a disagreement" and that he thinks conservatives would accept former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, who is pro-choice, as a potential running mate.

"I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party," Mr. McCain told the Weekly Standard in an interview published on the magazine's Web site Wednesday afternoon. "And I also feel that - and I'm not trying to equivocate here - that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out."

But social-conservative leaders say a pro-choice nominee would cripple Mr. McCain politically with the Republican Party base.

[More]

Character Counts--Especially for Catholics

Election Prayer

A friend sent me this election prayer:

PRAYER FOR ELECTIONS:

Our Lady of America, Lily of Purity, intercede for our country during the coming elections. Since you are the ever Virgin Mary and Mother of the true God, obtain for us from the Blessed Trinity a president and other political leaders who will help the United States become a country of great purity and high morality.

Sweet Mother, intercede for us that our next president will support life of each individual at every stage, uphold family life, and influence other countries throughout the world to love God above all else and neighbor as self, to serve Him, and to live for Him alone. Time and again you have given us your gracious assistance and thus we humbly and gratefully acknowledge you as our Patron.

Mary conceived without sin pray for us who [seek] recourse to thee and all those who do not [seek] recourse to thee!

May Our Eternal Father shine His light upon our country and the whole world. AMEN.

Presidential Poll Update: Pew Poll Shows White, Non-Hispanic Catholics Evenly Divided

Here is the link to the Pew Research Poll (conducted from July 31st to August 10th). The Catholic sample shows McCain with a one point lead among white, non-Hispanic Catholics. The national registered voter sample shows that Obama's lead has effectively "disappeared" and is now at three points (the poll's margin of error for national registered voters is 2.5 pts.). Note that registered voter samples usually exaggerate the Democratic candidate's vote. That historical fact tells me that McCain might actually be leading Obama at this point. In addition, there is some history that indicates that African-American candidates "overpoll," as we saw most spectacularly and most recently when Hillary Clinton upset Obama in the New Hampshire primary even though all or virtually all of the polls showed Obama in the lead.

Archbishop Chaput: "Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life"

On August 12, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver will release his latest book - Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life, which focuses on a question of undeniable importance for Catholics in the U.S. but also around the world: What is the role of faith in the public square?

Fr. Robert Imbelli, a Boston College associate professor of Theology, gives readers an insightful and well-written review of the archbishop’s book, which will be published in L’Osservatore Romano.

NRLC: " Obama Cover-up On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill"

National Right To Life Committee investigates Obama's defense of his vote against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act:

"Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion -- even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 -- denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions -- were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose."

Thanks to the NRLC for doing their homework and acquiring the "smoking gun" documents.

Follow Up to Previous Post on Antichrist Echoes

Here is the Time magazine link. In my view, Obama is not the Antichrist (or, to be more accurate, an antichrist, because the Bible also uses the term in the plural in 1 John 2:18)--at least I have not seen enough theological evidence to seriously make any such claim; and, as a Catholic, I am very wary of any such claims. But Obama himself (certainly not McCain) has inevitably created the echoes with his own compulsive, freely chosen rhetoric of false messianism. As they say, pride comes before a fall. The proud dig their own pit. Maybe, if Obama knew his Bible better, he would have avoided the excessive messianic rhetoric. Other relevant biblical references can be found at 1 John 2:22; 4:3; and 2 John v. 7 (there is only one chapter in 2 John). This development is another sign of how out of touch Obama and his top advisers are with the cultural background of many ordinary Americans.

Defending Deal Hudson (InsideCatholic.com, Vox Nova and Catholics in the Public Square)

Over at Vox Nova, Michael [Policraticus ] has some harsh criticisms of Deal Hudson and InsideCatholic.com:

... Whatever may be the quality of the "stuff" at Inside Catholic, the truth is that, like the liberality taken in U.S. Catholicism after Vatican II, Inside Catholic is a reduction of Catholic identity to political concern. Such reductionism, be it of the liberal or conservative mode, is, indeed, just "stuff." ...

...Could you really believe that a site run by a Republican-affiliated and ideologically strapped conservative is free from manipulation? Please. ...

... [Vox Nova] is resiliently Catholic at its core. Hence, those who think only in binomials (conservative vs. liberal; Democrat vs. Republican) may have difficulty identifying this. I think you may be confusing us with InsideCatholic, which is political first and only secondarily Catholic. If you strip Hudson's pieces of their politics, there is nothing left but ruins. No Catholic substance. ...

Given that Vox Nova is taking a (justifiable) walloping at Mark Shea's Catholic & Enjoying It, I'm going to be brief:

First, as much as Michael is in the habit of reminding readers of Vox Nova not to dismiss his blog on account of this or that particular contributor, I find it odd why he so readily dismisses an entire website on account of its director.

For a "Republican-affiliated and ideologically strapped conservative", I've found Mr. Hudson is remarkably gracious in providing a forum for authors with an array of positions at marked variance with his own. (Provided if he exercises that degree of editorial control -- I remain skeptical).

InsideCatholic may be "conservative" in tone, but from what I've seen they encompass everybody from card-carrying Republicans like Hudson to paleocons like Russell Shaw, sharply critical of U.S. foreign policy; economic libertarians like Thomas Woods to disgruntled curmudgeons like Mark Shea with a professed ambivalence toward "The Stupid Party" and "The Evil Party." You'll also find Catholic Democrats like Mark Stricherz and Eric Pavlat -- incidentally, both authors on the InsideCatholic blog alongside Mr. Hudson.

That said, I suspect InsideCatholic.com for all of its welcome diversity would draw the line on having one of its contributors assert that "[abortion] should be decided at the level of the women, the doctor, and the pastor. This is subsidiarity," or "The pro-choice concern is primarily with the intrusion of the Federal government into the lives of individuals. It's about personal freedom. This is a reasonable concern" or "The decision rests with the women. It becomes an act of individual conscience. ... And yes, conscience trumps all, whether formed or uninformed." (I suspect it was the introduction of an enthusiastic supporter of Obama with the capacity for spouting excessive amounts of pro-choice sophistry straight out of a NARAL playbook that compelled a number of Vox Nova readers to give up and move on to "greener pastures", virtually speaking).

Back to the point: as far as I can tell, there is no "party line" that is enforced among the Catholic contributors to InsideCatholic.com, except perhaps fidelity to authoritative Church teaching on those matters on which she has clearly spoken. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger once said to the U.S. Bishops, "there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty [and I suppose policy on immigration or "universal healthcare"], but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Secondly, the charge that InsideCatholic "is political first and only secondarily Catholic" is asserted only in ignorance of the other two aspects of InsideCatholic's focus -- faith and culture. I think if Michael examined InsideCatholic's content closely before dismissing it as mere "stuff", he'd find some articles on liturgy, ethics, art, science, history and literature that may possibly merit his approval if he'd only deign to peruse a little.

* * *

If you examine the "mission statements" of both websites, you'll see the two hold rather similar objectives. InsideCatholic's mission is "to be a voice for authentic Catholicism in the public square."

We believe that truth is both attractive and compelling and that in the marketplace of ideas, it will invariably win out. For this reason, we encourage difference and debate among our many writers, columnists, and bloggers. All of the bloggers and columnists -- and most of our feature writers -- are faithful Catholics. But beyond our shared commitment to Catholicism, we hold a full range of varying opinions on political, social, and cultural matters.

Vox-Nova engages in a similar objective:

United in our Catholic, pro-person worldview, yet diverging in our socio-political opinions, we seek to provide informed commentary and rigorous debate on culture, society, politics and law, all while unwaveringly adhering to, and aptly applying the principles of Catholic doctrine.

As much as certain members of Vox Nova may speak ill and dismissively of InsideCatholic, I think they serve a complimentary role in the Catholic universe.

* * *

Two more clarifications are in order.

Vox Nova - "Liberal" Blog?

The charge is occasionally made that Vox Nova is a liberal blog (as in leaning to the "left"), in their defense they do boast a reasonable degree of political diversity among its membership -- including several (Blackadder, JonathanJones2) who might very well be deemed "conservative." Unfortunately, I think the label comes in large part from the polemical nature of the combox debates, where -- due to a notable lack of policing for the sake of civility -- the the tone quickly becomes that of an elementary school playground and conservative critics find themselves on the receiving end of childish insults.

Catholics in the Public Square - "Republican" Blog?

Secondly, responding to Morning Minion's latest criticism of "conservative" Catholic blogs and Catholics in the Public Square in particular ("basically a site dedicated to rallying Catholic support for the Republican party"), some clarification of our own purpose is in order.

Catholics in the Public Square was born in 2004 under the term 'Catholic Kerry Watch', its specific focus on the views of the self-styled "pro choice Catholic" Senator John Kerry and the scandal he brought with his insistence on receiving the Eucharist. Following the 2004 Presidential election, we've expanded our discussion to Catholics in public service on both sides of the political divide.

Membership in CPS has shifted a bit over the years (some are no longer present, and others post rarely, if at all) but at no point has endorsement or fidelity to the GOP been a criteria for participating in this blog (I'd invalidate myself, being an independent). Obviously, one of us is enthusiastically supportive of McCain; others (myself and Jay Anderson in particular) have been particularly critical of McCain's positions at variance with Catholic teaching. I daresay most of us here will either cast their ballot "holding their nose" this year, or refrain from voting at all.

In terms of "rallying Catholics to the Republican Party", search our archives and you'll find us critical of Catholic Republicans and Democrats (CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani being two -- in fact, Vox Nova was proud to join Steve Dillard and CPS in the successful venture Catholics Against Rudy).

The charge is also made that CPS is negligent in choosing to focus on "the life issues" (abortion, ESCR research, euthanasia, etc.) without joining in the debates on immigration, poverty, health insurance, and global warming.

Speaking only for myself, I am reluctant to expound on these topics due not only to my admitted ignorance but also and more importantly given the original scope and purpose of this blog.

One may easily identify where a Catholic legislator has fallen short of Church teaching on matters where the Church has spoken authoritatively. There is no mistaking, for instance, where the Church stands on abortion and ESCR or "gay marriage" (sometimes dismissed as "wedge issues" because they are, well, divisive). When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterates the "grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life" and the impossibility (for Catholics) "to promote such laws or to vote for them", it sets a definitive standard by which one can judge the actions of a Catholic legislator. Less clear, I think, are concerns like the reduction of poverty or immigration or the questionable phenomenon of "global warming" -- where the debate can get muddy very quickly.

This is where, I think, a blog like Vox Nova makes a significant contribution to online Catholic discussion, by bringing these issues into focus and providing a forum where those well-versed in such issues can debate the prudential application of Catholic social teaching. Like InsideCatholic.com, it has greater ambitions and a larger scope -- to which I say, more power to them, if they can manage it.

Delegates to Knights of Columbus Convention Adopt Resolutions Challenging Catholic Office-Holders

I received the following email from the Knights of Columbus earlier today:

Knights of Columbus convention delegates adopt resolutions challenging Catholic office-holders on abortion, affirming marriage as union of one man and one woman

(Quebec City, Quebec) - Delegates to the annual international convention of the Knights of Columbus today adopted a resolution opposing "any governmental action or policy that promotes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide and other offenses against life."

The delegates also challenged "our fellow Catholics who are elected officials to be true to the faith they claim to profess by acting bravely and publicly in defense of life, affirming with Pope Benedict XVI that 'there can be no room for purely private religion.'"

The resolution stated that the organization reaffirms its "commitment to building a culture of life by promoting policies that favor the family," and reaffirmed the organization's "long standing policy of not inviting to any Knights of Columbus event persons, especially public officials or candidates for public office, who do not support the legal protection of unborn children."

The resolution on life issues follows by several days the opening convention address by Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, in which he called on Catholic voters to "stop accommodating pro-abortion politicians," and encouraged them to "say 'no' to every candidate of every political party who supports abortion."

Delegates also adopted a resolution calling for "legal and constitutional protection . . . for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

The resolution declares that "marriage is a natural institution based on ancient human values that have evolved over time into a unique and deeply rooted social, legal and religious institution," and that it "reflects the natural biological complementarity between man and woman which predates the state and which is woven into the social and religious fabric of every major culture and society."

Marriage between man and woman "provides the most favorable environment in which to protect the rights and the best interests of children," the resolution stated.

Convention delegates adopted resolutions dealing with other public policy issues as well, including building a culture of life, religious liberty, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, decency on the Internet and in the media, Catholic education, and the Pledge of Allegiance. The texts of all the resolutions can be found at:

http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/convention_2008/resolutions/index.html

For complete coverage of convention events, go to the "Convention Central" web page at:

http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/convention_2008/index.html

Paging Archbishop Niederauer ...

In an interview on C-SPAN that aired on Sunday, Pelosi was asked about how some church officials have raised objections about whether former presidential contenders -- such as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) -- should receive communion.

Pelosi, a Roman Catholic whose district includes most of San Francisco, said she has not encountered such difficulties in her church.

"I think some of it is regional," she said, "It depends on the bishop of a certain region and fortunately for me, communion has not been withheld and I'm a regular communicant so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case."

-- Nancy Pelosi, on C-SPAN. (Via Curt Jester | The Deacon's Bench).

On that note, Nancy Pelosi's legislative record on abortion.

Update - Via Jeff Miller, an interview with Nancy Pelosi's pastor Monsignor Joe Brenkle of St. Helena in San Francisco:

California Catholic Daily: "So you can throw abortion out the window because you don't like Bush and the war?"

Brenkle: "No, but you put up with the imperfections of politicians. Nobody is perfect."

California Catholic Daily: "Have you ever discussed her positions on abortion and homosexual marriage with her?"

Brenkle: "I have not had an opportunity to do so."

California Catholic Daily: "Do you allow her to come to Holy Communion after the Church has taught that manifest public sinners who are unrepentant are to be denied Holy Communion?"

Brenkle: "The Church has never taught that."

Something in the water in San Francisco?

You are "Always a Critical Voting Bloc": McCain Now Leads Widely Among Catholics

The latest Zogby poll shows a dramatic turnaround for McCain (I guess I shouldn't be surprised given my daily prayer): McCain is now actually leading Obama (albeit by one point, but that is a big change from most recent polls although Rasmussen also recently showed a one point McCain lead and USA Today/Gallup recently showed a four point McCain lead among likely voters). Here is the link with the details. One excerpt especially relevant to Catholic readers of this blog:


"Catholics, who are always a critical voting bloc, favored Obama by 11% in mid-July. Now, they favor McCain by 15%."

Source link (emphasis added).

Jeremiah and the Gift of Discernment in an Election Year

Today I heard Sister Ann Shields of the Servants of God's Love give her daily Scripture commentary on Michigan's Ave Maria Radio (you can listen on the internet daily at this link to her show "Food for the Journey," which runs from 10 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.) commenting on today's reading from Jeremiah 28:1-17. I highly recommend listening to her short, incisive commentaries as often as you can. The theme of the Jeremiah reading is the conflict between two prophets: the prophet Jeremiah who gives the true message from the Lord that warns the people to repent and the false prophet Hananiah who gives the people the soothing message that they want to hear. As is to be expected, Sister said that she would not go into details about the application of this passage to America today; but, speaking in appropriate and prudent general terms, she did say that America needs leadership that will tell the nation the hard truth about what's wrong with the way we live. She noted that God will not allow the high level of sin in today's America to persist without repercussions.

She can't give the detailed application because of her religious vocation. I can because of my lay vocation. In Obama, you see the false messianism, the false prophecy that all is well with a nation that has made killing of babies a legal right with the false aura of compassion, that all is well with a nation that celebrates gay "marriages" that further insult an institution already reeling from decades of heterosexual shacking up and fornication as an accepted way of life, that all we need is more of the same moral and logical fog so that we can all be part of One Happy World cheering a false messiah. Jeremiah's message applies to us today during this election year. Catholics and other Christians should open their Bibles and listen to the Word and ask the Holy Spirit to pour out the gift of discernment (see 1 Cor. 12:10) so we can be able to distinguish the true from the false in this election year.

Covering "The [Catholic] Convention for the Common Good"

The Convention for the Common Good was held in Philadelphia July 11-13, sponsored by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Network, a national Catholic social justice lobby. Deal Hudson reported on the event for InsideCatholic.com and as he notes, it was predominantly a gathering of the Left:

Alexia Kelley, the founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was the religious outreach director for the Democratic National Committee during the Kerry campaign. Network, a Catholic social justice lobby founded by a group of 47 Catholic sisters in 1971, which lobbies Congress on everything but abortion. Bill Donohue has written recently about both organizations as part of the Catholic Left "boxed in by abortion."

In my view, the Convention for the Common Good was going to be nothing more than an extended diatribe against President Bush, the Republican Party, and John McCain. . . . According to a recent college graduate who attended the conference all day on Saturday, my expectations were largely realized.

As Deal observes, a telltale sign of a conference's political alignment is from the materials they sell:

The booths outside the meeting contained no materials from either the GOP or conservatives. The non-profit Matthew 25 Project booth had a picture of Obama next to an open letter of support with a long list of signatures. She said the way the picture was hung next to Matthew 25:35 -- "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat" -- made Obama "look like he was Jesus."

Another booth offered literature on the gay, lesbian, and transgendered lifestyle. One booklet was entitled, A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage. A newspaper in the same booth, Bondings, published by New Ways Ministry of Mount Rainier, MD, had a full page list of "gay friendly" parishes throughout the country. My source never heard any mention of the nationwide debate over gay marriage at the conference. ...

The "Platform for the Common Good" is available on their website: "Vote the Common Good" -- the Platform Summary itself touches on many topics: "economic equity" between the "haves" and "have-nots"; "opposition to institutional racism, sexism and classism"; rehabilitation of the criminal justice system; third-world debt cancellation; "creative solutions" to drug trafficking, etc., etc., etc.

While it is asserted in the summary that "we must create the essential conditions for a consistent culture of life that respects and promotes life at all stages", the subject of abortion in the content of the platform itself is reduced to a single bullet point:

Promote policies that prevent and reduce abortions by supporting women and families. Ensure robust alternatives to abortion, including adoption.

While I wholeheartedly agree with this, it seems that a support for "the common good" would also entail working for the legal recognition and protection of the unborn and opposition those laws which attempt to legitimize abortion as a "right."

See also:

• The National Catholic Register reports on the same event, under the banner "New groups add broader Catholic views to politics". "Broader" views, indeed.
  
• How the Catholic Left Is Boxed in by Abortion, by William A. Donohue. InsideCatholic.com June 20, 2008.
  

People Will Start Thinking "666"

Back in the seventies (and even today), books describing the end times and the figure of the Antichrist were hot items in American popular culture. It is just a matter of time before the comparison begins to be made between the weird messianic hype surrounding Obama and those "pop culture" memories for many voters. I predict many evangelical voters and others will be reminded of the descriptions in popular books of the Antichrist as a smooth talking, seducing figure who pledges to unite the world (and with a European base, at that). I do not believe that Obama is the Antichrist, but he sure is strangely acting out the role that a certain genre of popular religious writing in the seventies imagined. If you freely choose to act weird, weird associations are inevitable. Here is some background at this link on the pop culture risk Obama persists in taking. It will be interesting to see if any pollsters decide to dare risk asking some probing questions in this area.

Celebrity or Wartime Leader?

That's the choice we face in November. The Obama candidacy: Never has so much superficiality been embraced by so many with such meager justification.